Interview with BYD personnel

比亚迪销售公司总经理：电动车已投放美国市场

记者：听说你们的纯电动车E6今年底投放欧美市场，现在情况如何？在海外市场的开拓方面有没有知识产权方面的障碍？

夏治冰：就在前天中国汽车第一次踏上了美国市场，混合动力F3在洛杉矶已经开始挂牌，进行批量投放。最近这两天我们会把相关图片、新闻、细节披露。这是中国汽车，也是中国电动车第一次进军美国汽车市场。这一点也可以看出来我们在进军海外，特别是美欧这些高端海外市场。我们想把全球要求最高的汽车市场拿下来，这对中国整体自主品牌形象的拉升和对比亚迪技术的提升有很大帮助。

我们所有的技术都是自主研发的，没有知识产权的障碍。

记者：能否介绍一下今年你们的新能源汽车在国内的销售状况？

夏治冰：今年也就1000台左右，明年计划在私人电动车上做到百分之百的增长。现在我们也在面临交货的问题，我们由深圳开始推广，逐渐扩展到北京、上海、杭州等城市。

记者：能否理解为比亚迪的电动车首先适用于公交系统，还未能真正进入私家车领域？

夏治冰：这两个事业并重。公交是一类，也有私家车。私家车投放的就是F3混合动力，因为全球的汽车品牌都在摇旗呐喊电动车时代，但是真正在市场上卖的，特别是在中国市场上卖的就我们一家。我们是小阶段、分区域的投放。但是公交需求量很大，一辆出租车一年的耗油量和排放量等于十家私家车，全国大概有120万辆的出租车，相当于1200万辆私家车，所以在公交里面率先推动电动车，对解决污染、解决能源问题有非常大的意义。

Link

比亚迪张璇：2011年车市稳健增长

12月20日，在广州车展上，比亚迪公关四部经理张璇接受了环球网汽车频道记者郭娓娓和环球时报广东广告分部苏琦的专访，访谈实录如下：

比亚迪公关四部经理张璇（中）

记者：比亚迪这次在广州车展展出的亮点新车未来的市场预期是什么样的？

张经理：这次广州车展，我们主要有三款车亮相。一款是我们的SUV车型S6，还有一款是比亚迪旗舰型家轿G6，另外一款是G3的两厢车型G3R。这三款车型都会在明年上半年集中推出。另外，除了这三款全新车型之外，现有的车型也推出了一些新的版本，这次在广州车展上有一定亮相，一个是F6推出了2.0 CVT版本，还有多功能MPV车型M6在广州车展也会上市两款新的尊贵型版本，一个手动挡，一个自动挡。它们的价位分别是手动挡17.08万，自动挡19.88万。另外，还有运动型城市家轿L3也会推出手动挡版本。

那么对于2011年的车市预测，2009年和2010年大家也可以看到，中国车市还是持续火爆的，并且中国现在也已经成为世界第一汽车销售大国，我们的产销是非常可观的。当然我觉得因为有一定的政府刺激政策在里面，也有可能会让消费者出现提前预支消费。所以经过两年车市的持续火爆，在2011年车市还会有一个比较稳健的增长。但是因为车型越来越丰富，可能消费者在购车时会更多倾向于理性购车。我们预测，2011年车市行业会保持在15%或者20%的增长趋势，我们比亚迪也会按照这样的车市趋势来设定自己的发展目标。我们新车型的推出也都会适应消费者的需要，像SUV车型是中国车市上销量最好的一个细分市场，我们会把SUV市场作为一个重点。另外，我们在新能源车方面也会有新的突破。

记者：我们新能源车目前的市场反响如何？

张经理：我们的新能源车大概分为三类，一个是针对个人市场推出的混合动力车型L3，这款车2010年一季度已经向深圳市民开始销售了。这款车月销量从最早的十一台、二三十台，到第四季度一个月超过一百台，市场反响和消费者的认可度越来越高。每天打电话咨询这款车的消费者还是比较多的，尤其是一些外地客户希望我们能把这款车尽快推到深圳以外的市场。在2011年，我们也会继续推动这项工作。这个就是混合动力车型，除了深圳以外的城市，未来我们还将在其他城市做进一步推广。

另外一个是纯电动车，纯电动车现在推出的是E6。在2010年，我们主要针对出租车市场做了一些示范调查，现在在深圳市区有55台比亚迪E6出租车，运营里程已经超过150万公里，单车已经超过7万公里。7万公里可能相当于私家车两三年的行驶里程。明年，通过这款车型在公共领域的示范，以及市场的信息反馈，我们也会对它进行升级和一些细节改进。

明年，我们也有计划推出个人版本的纯电动汽车，以作为市场化的一种新产品。另外，我们在2010年9月底已经下线了一款纯电动大巴叫“K9”。这个大巴主要是针对国内的公路交通领域，希望可以多做一些合作和推进。现在，我们跟长沙政府已经签署了一份意向购买协议。在2011年，我们还计划向更多的城市推广我们的纯电动大巴。

记者：目前，我们的车型在海外出口情况如何？

张经理：由于比亚迪汽车整体起步较晚，05年才推出第一款新车，因此在海外市场销售大家看到的数量还是比较少的，但是我们在中东、俄罗斯，还有一些美洲国家的经营市场推进得还是比较快，而且每年的增长率是超过百分之百的，但绝对数量上可能少一些。现在，据我所知，我们向国外销售的车型以前是以F3为主，这是我们最经典的一款车。这两年，比亚迪F6、F0也有一些出口，这个比例也在逐步增大。

记者：那么我们新能源车在国外销售情况如何？

张经理：这个也分一些情况，经过海外市场，像新兴一些汽车国家，它们可能对这种中国的品牌接受度更容易，我们进入这个市场也更容易。但是，对于比较成熟的欧美国家来说，它们本身就有一些很老牌的国际品牌，因此你想再占领市场并不是太容易。不过，比亚迪有一个优势就是新能源和电池技术在全球领域处于领先地位。所以，我们在成熟的欧美国家，是以新能源汽车出口为主。上周，我们就已经向美国开始出口我们的双核电动车F3DM，是跟洛杉矶地区有合作，现在F3DM在洛杉矶的街头也是能看得到的。在明年，我们也会向欧洲国家在新能源汽车方面做一些出口。但是可能各个国家对新能源车的机制还有标准方面还需要一段测试时期。不过，针对这些国家，我们在新能源市场的推进方面，整体形势还是比较良好的。

记者：比亚迪今年的销量情况怎样？能否达到预期的目标？

张经理：今年我们的销售目标是60万辆，到12月初，我们的销量已经超过了50万辆。相比去年同期，大概增长了25%，基本上还是超过了同行业企业的平均水平。我们对销售情况整体还是比较满意。当然，我们在年底这一个月还会集中精力冲刺，销量方面还会有个更好的成绩。

记者：那么，明年比亚迪的发展规划是怎样呢？

张经理：明年，我们推的SUV车型是普遍比较走量的车型，在国内的销量也是比较好的。SUV在一个月能卖到一万辆，对销售数量来说提升会比较快。但是我们还要看到的就是，自主品牌在传统市场方面也会向上发展，因为传统的AO、AOO级车型也是我们具有传统优势的细分市场。另外对于B级和C级车型，我们也会做一个上攻的努力。

记者：明年比亚迪的销量目标是多少呢？

张经理：目前，我们还没有设定，但是我们基本会按照15%-20%这样的一个增幅来走，这个也大概符合整个市场的发展趋势。

苏琦：有媒体报道第三季度比亚迪利润是下滑的，原因是在哪里呢？对此，比亚迪有哪些应对措施？

张经理：因为比亚迪集团是个上市公司，所以它的年报或者是财报都是比较透明的，大家看得也都比较清楚。在第三季度，其实针对汽车研发方面投入的力度是比较大的。今年我们也一直在推中高端车型，像现在推的L3、M6都是十万元以上的车型，那这个对于技术来说也是比较大的挑战。在新能源车方面，像E6、纯电动大巴等，短期是看不到收益的，但前期的投入和研发方面还要持续来做。另外，我们在新能源核电站、太阳能电池这些方面的研发投入也比较大，所以总体支出比较大。

另外，七八月份汽车是汽车销售的淡季，这几个月的销售成绩对公司的利润也会有一些影响。但整体来说，今年的订单数还是比较不错的。

记者：在出口方面，比亚迪有没有遇到一些困难？

张经理：出口方面，每个自主车企都是比较看重的。但是我们的量相对来说还是比较少。各个国家的情况不一样，它们所接受的车型也不一样。所以针对新兴的市场和成熟的市场，我们也分别制定了不一样的策略和方式。

记者：在其他国家，它们在政策上有没有设置太多的壁垒和障碍？针对这种情况，比亚迪如何应对？

张经理：其实也不存在这种状况，因为目前比亚迪在国外有自己的代理商。另外，在海外也有一些CKD整车组装厂。在俄罗斯有一个，在叙利亚也有一个。所以在这方面，这些组装厂和代理商对我们推广海外市场还是有比较大的帮助。

记者：我们环球网主要是采取中英文汽车相结合的方式，想努力帮助中国车企走出去。您在这方面对我们有没有一些建议和想说的话？

张经理：作为一个对外发布的媒体，能多一个渠道去宣传中国自主品牌是很有必要的。因为大家可能知道，做IT也是从代工慢慢做起来的。其实我们一直做的很大，但是一直没有自己的品牌，没有品牌议价能力，那我们赚的只是这种加工的钱。但是不一样的是，现在如果要做汽车的话，就是要把自己的自主品牌销售出去，在国内和国外树立起“质廉价优”的口碑。当然这方面也要求我们自身作一些努力，包括产品、方案、产品品质和市场战略，媒体一个最大的好处就是能够通过这种国际化的视点帮助我们更好的走出去。

Link

比亚迪杨昭：市场竞争越充分 优胜劣汰越明显

和讯汽车消息 12月21日,第8届广州国际汽车展 览会在羊城琶洲展馆将要拉开帷幕。本届广州车展 以“领先科技，共创未来”为主 题，充分展示广州汽车市场风向标的魅力。和汛汽车为您做全程报道。

在车展上，和讯汽车举办了主题为“变革中的本土品牌 机遇与挑战”的精彩沙龙，比亚迪汽车销售有限公司公关二部经理杨昭发表了精彩观点。

以下为内容实录：

试乘试驾贯穿在我们整个一系列产品的推广活动中

【杨昭：】试乘试驾我们一直持续在做，而且做的非常多，从第一款的F3开始，我们特别注重区域性小区巡展，比如到十强县，结合试乘试驾，我们可以做到整个方方面面。当时我们要求商家走出去，要走到社区，走到消费者的面前，和我们的消费者近距离的接触，让他们很直观的体验我们的产品。

举一个例子，2009年我们F0这款车，先说一下成绩把吧，F0上市不到三年，两年多，销量非常好，现在卖了20多万辆了。这款车我印象最深是在09年，全年都在做试乘试驾的展示活动，有些是配合车展，有些是单独做的试乘试驾。在展示车辆性能的同时，因为是非常小的一款车，但是可以做特技表演，消费者除了常规的试乘试驾体验，还可以做日常生活中不可能接触到的特技，比如说原地调头360度，还有甩尾、漂移等，充分感受这辆车，不但是工具，而且可以让消费者更多的体验这款车非常好玩。

试乘试驾对我们来说非常重要，而且一直贯穿在我们整个一系列产品的推广活动中。车展也是非常重要，其实我们在这一块也是非常重视，国内A级展我们是分A1和A2级，每年我们会做40多个大大小的展览，大的展会是产品和品牌的宣传，我们在济南车展时，最高一个记录一个车展下来卖了800多台F3。展会对我们来说其实也是非常重要的。

市场竞争充分 优胜劣汰

【杨昭：】截至11月底，累计已经销售接近47万台，去年我们卖了44.8，截至到今年年底的话，应该会有一个最少10%以上的增幅。当然了，去年的销量因为政策的影响非常大，刚才主持人也说了，政策的干预导致了市场的透支，今年其实政策干预的力度也很大，随着政策的退出，相对市场可能会走向比较理性、比较平稳的发展。至于说这个市场的增量，作为我们来说，因为现在产品序列，还有很多新产品推出，所以我们明年也不好去预估增量是多少，但是希望在新产品，包括既有的拳头产品的支撑下，应该还会有一个较大幅度的增长。

【杨昭：】合资品牌的自主车，或者是合资品牌的合资车，或者是外资品牌的车，他们的市场意识在下探，价格在降低，但是自主品牌也没有停，也在上探，若干年前我们自主品牌，或者是我们国内生产的汽车，相比这些国外进口的，或者是合资品牌生产的车，品质的差异会比较大，但是最近一些年来，这个差距是越来越小了，而且我们自主品牌的份额是逐年在扩大，应该是在09年、10年到达了非常高的程度。

【杨昭：】产品差距越来越小，再加上产品的种类越来越多，当然竞争也肯定会越来越充分。刚才说到A级车，像F3，A级车市场永远是竞争最激烈的，但是总会有胜出者。

【杨昭：】市场竞争充分，就会优胜劣汰，好的企业就会留下来，不好的企业、不好的产品就会自然而然的淘汰掉，对自主品牌的企业也好，对外资、合资的企业产品都是非常好的方向。

比亚迪下一个阶段将在公共交通领域做重点的推广

【杨昭：】比亚迪的新能源，我先讲一下，不单是新能源汽车。

比亚迪在新能源这一块，整合了上下游的产业链，从上游的多晶硅，到太阳能电池板的制造，到最下端的LED、LED灯泡、节能汽车等，在整个产业链都会有所涉及。电动汽车现在最大的问题是推广难，规模很小，成本也非常高。在推广难这一块，现在基础设施建设最近一段时间在很多媒体，我们都看到了非常好的消息，就是很多城市都出台了相对应的，几年里我们要盖多少个充电站、充电桩等，深圳未来要建2万个以上。这些基础设施建设之后，对电动汽车走入家庭会有非常好的推动作用，但是目前我们面临的是基础设施非常少，甚至几乎就没有。在这样的环境下，我们还需要不断的推动，因为比亚迪做新能源汽车，从立项到现在是八年时间，但是做电池是十多年时间了，一直在努力，投入也非常大。持续的投入也好，持续的推广也好，但是现在需要有一个转变，现在我们有两款车，一款是纯电动的大巴K9，另外就是E6，E6在深圳投放了一批出租车，运行的状况非常好，累计运行里程超过150万公里，反映也非常好，这就是我们推广的思路。后期E6这款车我们主要是会在出租汽车市场上做推广，为什么这么做呢？出租汽车相对于民用，或者是普通消费者使用，对基础设施的依赖要小很多，出租汽车是区间运行，不会超过城市，而且对基础设施的依赖是需要给它一个合理的布局就可以满足，不需要特别大量的。当然我们普通消费者行驶路径也好，或者是生活半径也好，很多不是那么容易满足的，需要大量的基础设施支撑，所以我们先推广在出租车上。这是在推广的难易程度上。

另外是推广的效果上，出租车是普通车的10倍以上，如果出租车大面积应用，对节能减排也能够起到非常好的作用。经济效益上，电动车在运营过程中，电费成本只是相当于用油成本的1/3、1/4，作为出租车行业来说，油价非常高，在经济效益上也是非常大的影响，再加上现在国家有非常大的产业政策支持，这个市场的进入是很容易的。另外就是公交车，刚才说了社会效益、经济效益，还有就是对基础设施的依赖，公交车对基础设施的依赖更小，只是A到B的运行，行驶区间非常固定，基础设施非常容易实现。经济效益也是一样，运营成本很低，在运营当中只有1/3、1/4的现在的成本，而且公交车的社会效益也非常好。

【杨昭：】是的，公交车、出租车都是日常生活中接触的，个人消费者对新能源汽车推广非常大的难度，消费者天天可以在媒体、电视上看到新能源汽车前景如何如何好，但是只看得见，摸不着，没有办法亲身体验。现在汽车消费最好的体验是车展、试乘试驾，但是如果没有机会看到，何谈推广新能源汽车呢？公交和出租车一旦规模化运行，消费者在日常生活中很容易就可以接触到，这对于他们个人购买、个人使用新电源电动汽车可以起到非常好的作用。这是我们下一个阶段的思路，在公共交通领域做重点的推广。

Link

S. KOREAN POLYSILICON MAKER WINS US$200 MLN ORDER FROM BYD UNIT

Woongjin Polysilicon Co., a South Korean manufacturer of polysilicon, said Wednesday that it has won a US$200 million order to provide the material used in solar-panel cells to a unit of Chinese carmaker BYD Co.

Under the deal with BYD Shangluo Industry Co., Woongjin Polysilicon will provide the material. But the South Korean firm did not elaborate on other terms of the deal, including the duration of the contract.

Woongjin Polysilicon, a unit of Woonjin Group, currently operates a plant in South Korea that produces 5,000 tons of polysilicon.

Earlier this year, BYD started construction of its second solar battery production line. BYD's annual production capacity is estimated at 100 megawatts.

Link to the Article

Apple, Google, NewsCorp and the Future of Content

In this issue of The Institutional Risk Analyst, we speak to Michael Whalen, [Emmy] award winning composer and new media observer about the outlook for the business of creating and delivering content.  Since graduating from Berklee College of Music, Michael has taught a business for music class that has saved thousands of young artists from making terrible mistakes with content and other contractual rights.  Think Frank Zappa and Warner Brothers.   And yes, Michael is IRA co-founder Chris Whalen's younger brother. 

The IRA: So Michael, let's start with kudos for the call on iTunes years ago. You first gave your brother a heads up about Apple Computer's (AAPL) move into music via iTunes a decade ago, correct?

Whalen: Thanks. Yes...back in 2000 - 2001, I saw that Apple was getting ready to take a monumental step by shifting its business away from just computers and software towards mobile devices. To see how big a deal this decision was, you have to travel back to that time… When people thought of downloadable music the first thing they thought of was Napster (remember them?) and to the general business community the idea of all entertainment being sold and distributed digitally through a SIMPLE platform was "risky" and truly visionary. The music business was all about CDs (still) and the traditional model of physical product. Interestingly, iPod was not first to market. The digital music players that did exist beforehand were clunky and big. In 2001, concepts such as iTunes and the iPod made it look like Steve Jobs and the management at AAPL were crazy or at least losing "confidence" in their core business. People asked with more than a tone of criticism: "why diversify"? "Has Microsoft (MSFT) beaten you"? Now 10 years later, their gamble looks like genius. It was…

The IRA: Indeed. How do you view the AAPL strategy going forward, especially with the apparent decision to let Droid handset take overall share? Is AAPL still well advised to keep proprietary control over the hardware and not allow third-party produces to make handsets that run the AAPL OS?  Click here (http://us1.irabankratings.com/mobile/home.asp ) to see IRA's new digital widget for handsets.

Whalen: I think handicapping the handset/mobile device market with just a hardware conversation is short-sighted, frankly. In my opinion, the near-term future is all about content streaming. The profit margins in these handset devices is so small that staying in the game will be very tough if you are not already in it and buying your way into the market may not pay off because the margins might not cover the cost of entry unless you are hugely successful. For investors interested in AAPL, watch what they do with their huge new cloud-computing center in North Carolina. As already reported in the media, this facility is going to go far beyond simply turning iTunes into a streaming subscription service. AAPL is going to start to be very visibly aggressive with all that cash they have and this location is but a bellwether of other centers and a very interesting future that is unfolding.

The IRA: Do tell. So, to ask the same question from a different perspective, will AAPL push all content to all devices or just the iPhone/pod/pad? Maybe layers?  Your reply suggests that the hardware origin no longer matters, even for AAPL.

Whalen: Hardware only matters as a platform for content streaming and customized applications. The future is here right now: the iPad, iPhone and even the new Macbook Air have no hard drives.... they have flash drives which suggests that the data you need to operate the device can live on a flash drive or the data will be usable at the other end of a network someplace. AAPL has aggressively inserted "data pushing" into nearly every app now. So, from now - - look 24 months into the future when the mobile phone companies finally have their networks together here in the USA and we are talking about something ever more huge on the horizon: imagine making broadcast television and radio totally irrelevant - - even to captive audiences like commuters, which has been the life blood of radio. People will be able to stream any kind of content in any definition in real time -everywhere in the United States. Countries like Korea and Japan are years ahead of us in this technology. However, the USA is "entertainment thirsty" and on the move. The real question is how much will this new streaming content cost and where will the market balk when it is so used to getting so much content for free now.

The IRA: So are we talking about the end of proprietary channels and exclusivity, even for companies like AAPL? The Google (GOOG) sponsorship of Droid looks to us like a very smart way to essentially abscond with the relationships of the carriers. AAPL has pushed content onto PCs via iTunes. Will they also attempt to push content to ALL handsets or is their opportunity defined by the AAPL hardware and OS?

Whalen: No, I think AAPL's days of dreaming that they will be the only hardware game in town are over.... They are crushing people with design and marketing now. However, in the last 12 months you can feel a change in the wind. Their stance in the media and in their marketing has shifted as well. They have learned that Droid is real and that iPhone will not dominate the market in terms of total share. They have blown open the tablet computing market with the iPad - but so many other devices are out and coming to market. So, yes, we're talking about delivering content across all platforms.

The IRA: The IRA is now running on a new Droid 2 via Verizon (VZ). Lost the Blackberry and MSFT Outlook all on the same day. Free at last, free at last. OK, so let's open the scope a bit and go back to our conversation last week about Fox, NBC, etc. If the handset is the means of receiving content, what happens to TV or even cable? Our friend Joe Costello on the archein21@googlegroups.com thread reminded us over the weekend of the comment by Level Three to the Bloomberg News report that Comcast (CCS) is going to charge Netflix more for movies. Hello? Was the Comcast/NBC deal an astute way for General Electric (GE) to run away from a declining business?

Whalen: Yes. GE was brilliant in getting out of traditional television now. CCS doesn't yet see that they were wooed by the memory of how profitable television once was. Those days are dwindling quickly. However, I see many TV execs puffing their chests saying how great the upfronts were in the Fall and how the shows they're making are retaining market share. This is simply not true. Have you checked-in with those advertisers lately? The rush of eyeballs leaving TV is amazing. The data hasn't yet caught-up to where the market is sprinting. You'll see in the next 12 - 18 months very popular new content streaming directly from the servers of the people who made the show onto devices - - maybe they'll use iTunes, FaceBook or even GOOG for aggregation and this new show will completely circumvent the traditional television structure for production, marketing and broadcast. Technology has caught up and the game has changed for TV. Said another way, the TV and film businesses are changing as radically now as the music business did (and continues to change) ten years ago. Consumers had to wait for the network bandwidth to catch up before the change in video & film product became feasible. Now it is... As for other TV outlets, you are going to see MUCH MORE leasing of broadcast space - a la "American Idol" or "Survivor". Networks will be leasing the time (space) in "primetime" with certain financial overrides if a show is wildly popular, etc. It will be interesting to see if the FCC starts coming down on networks who are no longer standing by the programming on their digital bandwidth as theirs - but simply a tenant. Imagine a now future where broadcast TV is only truly valuable for live events, captive live programming like "Idol" and sports. The networks don't want to tell you that this future is here NOW. The research data will be here soon - but investors waiting for the eyeballs to be counted before making decisions will be late to the next party.

The IRA: We used to have discussions with Alan Schwartz and the technology bankers at Bear, Stearns & Co. years ago about whether the pipe or the content ruled the model. Now we see that the pipe is becoming an infinite lake whereon we must all learn to differentiate our brand in a sea of brands, brands that have global potential reach as you said. In terms of content delivery, is this just taking our TVs with us in a mobile sense or is it more transformative? Look at Twitter as the extension of AIM on a global scale, but is there a global peer-to-peer network here?

Whalen: There are two ways to look at the end of television as we have known it for 70 years.... The first is that mobile devices killed television because Americans are dealing with life on the run. The traditional picture of the family all gathered with their dinners together in the living to watch an evening's entertainment does NOT happen. If you're not working in TV like me, you may not get what a big deal this is. Television producers are scrambling to change EVERY part of how television is created for an audience whose life is literally on the run.

The IRA: Yes, but can you run, talk and text at the same time? To us, humans are no more able to multitask than computers. Is this really productive? Or are we all becoming insane thanks to the manifold "benefits" of technology?

Whalen: Here's two examples: cameramen are changing shots to work for a 3" screen by reframing distant shots that might look weird on a portable device to use more close-up and medium shots and sound is being adjusted to work for the dynamic limitation of headphones. We have already started seeing two versions of shows - one for TV and one for your handset. This combined with shrinking dollars for production and almost ridiculous competition - it's true that the pipe that is now a lake that is turning into a ocean - very, very fast. Secondly, the TV at home and the home computer are merging - literally. The new GOOG TV product is a pretty good structure for managing the expectations and simplicity needed for a broad-audience. As a music professional, I like the Sony (SNE) Internet TV. It's pretty slick for hardware but it's just a stop on the way to a device that must transform itself from regular TV, high def, a gaming device, straight internet and wirelessly interface with all our mobile stuff at once. I have found it very interesting that AAPL hasn't jumped into this fray given their "digital home" strategy. I think Steve Jobs is waiting for the market to sort itself out before he brings something to market or perhaps I am right and the game on the hardware war is over…

The IRA: Correct, AAPL and GOOG clearly have the advantage of incumbency here. But back to your earlier point, so all of the content creators basically become syndication platforms for all of the "delivery devices" regardless of what OS they are running? And does this help artists, authors and other content creators economically? Is this the final epitaph for the "studio model"?

Whalen: Correct... OS is no longer a marketplace "battlefield" how it was 5 or 10 years ago and the whole notion of what operating system your computer is running has been pushed to the background just as handsets have just been pushed to the background as we discussed before… Therefore - not surprisingly, I believe that we are all content creators in the future we are walking into. I don't mean making videos on YouTube or Vimeo - - I mean that content itself will be made by the audience and the "artists" of our new future will be there to provide inspiration, elements and focus. In other words, all artists will be brands that will have their audiences doing the work of executing content that is inspired by the brand itself.

The IRA: So we are all just virtual brands as in The Matrix?

Whalen: Yes. It will be interesting how this all gets monetized. Just as J-Lo has her name on a perfume now or Madonna opens a chain of Health Clubs (not kidding) - this is just the beginning of the fusion of marketing - licensing - brand imaging - content and distribution. It will test the existing, IMHO ridiculous, copyright laws we have and to the wall. Don't believe me? OK… Well, the future of content/brand creation and licensing is going to shock you even in a few years. That said, I am not sure how all this "helps" artists and creators/owners of content in the short or long terms. One of things I have been saying in my lectures on music business, in my writings and seminars is that this whole digital wave that is breaking is about resetting expectations. We have deluded ourselves for 75 years about what artists, creative people and copyright owners should and can make financially.

The IRA: You said the other day that you see the golden age of American music and film, in terms of the position of artists, going back to the future to the Middle Ages. Could you elaborate?

Whalen: Frankly, I think we're going back to the 19th century in terms of the "status" of artists. They'll be figureheads. Imagine: like Paris or Vienna of the 1900s, we'll have wealthy patrons and small clutches of people who support the art of "real" artists. In this environment, the work we will try to sell is simply a loss leader and an inducement for us to perform or create a "custom" song, TV show or film... Yup, it's all here now... What will be really interesting is what happens next… I am not pretending to be the "Grim Reaper" but I think the record business, the film studio system and the television networks are over as we think we know them. I think there is a new business emerging in gathering creative investment, content and creative marketing.... It will be in a structure that's more akin to a stock market than the traditional structure we've seen for artistic and creative content and the platform for it will be the digital ocean we have already discussed. Based on the "buzz", there will be a "futures" market and the idea is commoditized and funded in days - not months or years. For decades, most record companies and networks have been little more than funding sources for artists - now the truly visionary artist won't even need these ancient businesses - the market itself will generate everything it needs to create content efficiently. It's a little overwhelming the change that is here now vs. five years ago and that will be coming in torrents in the next few years. Amazing.

The IRA: Likewise it is interesting to see the way that the service providers, Verizon for example, and the handset maker, Motorola (MOT) and HTC, in the case of the Droids, are losing leverage to the GOOG's of the world. The entire Droid 2 is GOOG enabled. You don't even need to install the Moto drivers. And VZ pathetically tries to recapture eyeballs via a media player that is also irrelevant. How does AAPL avoid marginalization? Or is that the wrong question?

Whalen: It's a great question and it's a clue to AAPL's strategy in the near term. iTunes is but a platform and you can see that its already outgrown itself and will transform into something new soon... So, the next step in our "digital ocean" conversation is either the savvy investor interested in media will be controlling content or they will try owning the content. So, we've already discussed that owning copyrights is probably irrelevant in the long term - therefore, the future is all about owning the rivers that feed the "ocean" of content. Said another way, Wall Street really needs to get that the future of media is not about hardware or even the proprietary OS... I know we all get enamored of gadgets and thingies. The market is about to make all of that history.

The IRA: We've heard that before. How do you see the delivery/payment relationship changing?

Whalen: Well, you can assert that AAPL's strategy and that spooky HUGE building in North Carolina has something to do with controlling tracts of copyrights without the need of OWNING them. This of course begs the question: how? What if iTunes or whatever AAPL calls their new streaming service is broken into TWO parts - the actual delivery and streaming of the programs, etc. and on the other side - - the administration of the copyrights in the digital realm including collecting fees and licenses from OTHER PLATFORMS. This would be HUGE.... revolutionary and it hasn't happened on this scale since Edison tried to own the whole content "jungle" himself at the turn of the 20th century. Mr. Edison didn't have to deal with 17 companies who will be screaming "antitrust, antitrust" when AAPL wheels this out… In this possible future, the fusion will be complete and unlike any paradigm that we have ever seen.

The IRA: Exactly. You have different models growing in this jungle. Is the AAPL path a fully integrated model? Does Jobs have to have exclusive control over content to monetize his audience? For example, to subscribe to my friend Tom Keene at Bloomberg, you must use iTunes... Do you like the AAPL path or Goog? Or is it too soon to tell? Does Facebook triumph?  We have friends who think Facebook eats everyone's traffic.

Whalen: I think everyone is waiting for a GOOG - AAPL face off. It's not going to happen... AAPL can BUY GOOG. In the end, I see the directions of these companies being very different. They have crossover now.... The mobile ad marketplace is particularly interesting area of crossover. But these two companies will have less and less crossover over the next few years. In this new "jungle", some of old players must be removed (bought) or merged and sold off. Isn't it amazing what is happening to MSFT? They are now a gaming company and they are specializing in mobile Internet products for cars. Wow. MSFT didn't play the whole OS thing or software thing very cleverly - did they? But I really do think it's too soon to tell. Facebook is valuable now to people - - I think the next 6 months will be very telling. Facebook is still a new "toy" to many. They will have to figure out how to keep the page relevant as the river of content that we've been discussing steals eyeballs... Maybe the river flows through Facebook?  AAPL and Facebook have been talking and they NEED each other. AAPL's Ping social network is a non-starter and Facebook has no real access to content. We'll see..

The IRA: So where does this leave Ruppert Murdoch and NewsCorp (NWS)? And you mentioned the impending changes at the New York Times web site to a paywall model. Our friend Felix Salmon at Reuters has been following the transition with his usual attention.

Whalen: I think Ruppert has to make a major move soon. Hulu is not the move. NWS is OK - now, say the next 12 - 24 months. However, so much of their content is delivered on old formats (TV, newspapers, magazines, Film Studio). He doesn't have his own platform now that will be attracting the audience that would feed on this content. NWS might have more time in some foreign markets - but in the US, Europe and Japan - the content river or lake as you suggested is getting ready to wash his old proprietary distribution empire away. Mr. Murdock might need to sell pieces to concentrate on his "core" - but the real players have been getting ready for this game for 3 - 5 years. Unless he's about to unveil some secret strategy which would have been leaked by now - he will have to pay a premium to be at this table with GOOG and AAPL. That said, the NYT is about to try to MAKE their digital content a tiered paid subscription model with some free views. They must find a way to monetize their sinking ship. But frankly, I think the idea is going to crater. No one wants to PAY for text - and a little video. Even from the New York Times. Their public arrogance as "the world's newspaper" might be covering a private fear for what happens when this "hail Mary pass" doesn't pan out. They have so much debt and their revenues are shrinking. Maybe GOOG or AAPL buys them? They don't NEED to - newspapers don't hold the allure or relevance they once did. Also, in the "fusion" model I outlined before - news will be delivered in a completely new way. It no longer needs to be "presented" by a credible looking news figure. Instead, news will be raw and the "commentary" will be generated by the audience themselves. Imagine the kind of stuff that people write as comments on video clips on YouTube or Facebook now but taken to the 10th power. The audience of the near future doesn't want to be walked through their news. Here's the new context for the new news: 1st person point of view as personal experience. Maybe you could say the news as "video game"? (laughs) Not quite… The NYTs has had a successful career as a shaper of stories - I think that is less important now and will go away quickly. Honestly, I think anyone in the newspaper business should be on Craig's List looking for a new gig.

The IRA: So, neither AAPL nor GOOG wants to own content. Fox has been spending a lot of $$ to create general, business content focused on the web, but they are competing for eyeballs with all of the other "islands" of content. Is NewsCorp, NYT essentially in the same boat as the artists your described?

Whalen: That's an interesting comparison. I think the big adjustment for these massive media companies is that I as a content provider will be EQUAL to them in this new paradigm. Already, my content can draw as many eyeballs as theirs. Regular people have videos on YouTube now that have tens of millions of views. I have a concept that I call "bendable content". In the new "ocean" of content that we will all swim in soon - all content will be "bendable". Bendable means that all media can be played on any device, anywhere, anytime. It also means that that the material can be reordered, edited, manipulated and re-contextualized. Yes, someone at the US Copyright office is weeping now. If you have a sophisticated computer, you can do all this manipulation NOW. In this new future, you'll be able to do this on a handset or a tablet computer and get the content back OUT there - wherever that is! How do you monetize this? We'll see. Investors may have to stop asking that question like there will always be a transaction out there that can be tracked. In the new media ocean - part of the service that you are pay for monthly will be reconstructing content.

The IRA: This returns to our question of the peer-to-peer dynamic, almost a global Napster for all content and free.

Whalen: Yes my brother. All of this kind of talk scares the crap of the TV networks and Film studios who have lasted so long by keeping their grip on content. In the new future - that conversation is OVER because the audience is demanding now that it be over. The future will simply be created by the people for the people - it's nice, isn't it? It's been by controlling content that's been keeping the "big" boys relevant - I'm surprised that they have lasted this long as purveyors to the public with their content and programming and news. The slow economy has slowed down our sprinting towards this future and finishing the work of building the networks that will carry all of this content - especially the wireless networks. But these walls are tumbling down now. What I like about the possible future we are talking about is how it's a VALUE conversation versus a captive one or a proprietary one. The Internet "attitude" has changed the rules for all these players by making content king and choice the other important metric. That said, the digital administration fence that Steve Jobs (or someone able to capture the digital ocean) might throw around "lake" of content may have us move from one kind on controlled experience to another... Will there be a toll taker in this future? Probably… It might even have an AAPL logo on it. We'll find out very soon

The IRA: Thanks Michael.

Link

Build Your Dreams

Watch the complete video HERE


BYD e-bus K9

BYD partner with AD Motors(Korea)

AD모터스, BYD 전기차 국내 상용화 추진

사진설명:유영선 AD모터스 사장(오른쪽)과 헨리 리 BYD오토 총경리가 14일 BYD오토 본사 회의실에서 전기차 상용화 업무협약을 체결했다.

AD모터스(대표 유영선)는 전기차 상용화와 안정적 수요처 발굴을 위해 중국 전기차 제조업체인 BYD오토와 국내 및 해외 전기차 상용사업 모델 개발 업무 협약을 체결했다고 15일 밝혔다.

양사는 이번 업무 협약으로 한국에서 BYD 전기차를 이용한 택시·렌터카·버스 운행 등 상용차 사업모델사업을 공동 구상, 개발할 계획이다.

AD모터스는 BYD의 전기차를 국내서 운행하기 위해 자동차 성능인증 및 테스트, 수입허가 절차를 전담하기로 하고 우선 전기차 300대를 상용사업모델 개발에 투입할 예정이다.

이 회사는 전기차 상용모델사업에 필요한 관제센터, 충전설비, 보험 및 금융지원, 애프터서비스 등 인프라 구축을 위해 기존에 업무협약을 맺은 국내외 업체들과 컨소시엄을 구성한다는 계획이다.

또 국내사업을 통해 검증된 상용사업모델을 기반으로 해외시장에 공동으로 진출할 계획이다. AD모터스와 협력을 맺은 BYD는 연구인력만 1만5000명이 넘는 전기차 전문 업체로 올해 2차전지와 자동차 기술을 접목한 전기자동차 ‘e6’를 개발·출시했다. 최근에는 워런버핏으로부터 약 2억3000만달러를 투자받았다.

유영선 사장은 “이번 제휴로 국내에 맞는 최적의 비즈니스 모델을 마련해 국내 전기차 시장의 활성화를 도모하고, 국내 경험을 발판으로 해외시장으로도 사업을 확대해 나갈 것”이라고 말했다. 이경민기자

Link to the News

Related News
AD Motors on October 2010: Distributor Agreement with 'BYD 'for LED products


Companies Involved
BYD
AD Motors

AD Motors is operated by R&D specialists that had worked for electric vehicle powertrain development for several decades. 


AD Motors is also working for various grand-scale government research projects, such as Energy's Parts & Material Technology Development Project and Futuristic Automobile Development Project under the Ministry of Commerce. 


AD Motors is doing its utmost to develop electric vehicles based on the technologies accumulated through well-experienced R&D specialists.

BYD and its “Green City Solution"

Many thanks to Shai. Great find!!

BYD and the HACLA Launch Electric Vehicle Testing Program

LOS ANGELES – The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and BYD Motors Inc. announced the launch of a break-through electric vehicle fleet today. The agreement was signed and BYD vehicles were put into service at HACLA Offices, 2600 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles.

“We are ecstatic to partner with BYD to test this fantastic EV fleet technology – not only will these electric vehicles reduce fuel costs significantly, but it will reduce direct-emissions by almost 37 lbs of CO2 per car, traveling less than 40 miles per day!” saidHACLA President and CEO, Rudolf C. Montiel. “With BYD’s technology, I believe we will accomplish great things for the environment and demonstrate the lowest-cost fleet program in the United States.”

The F3DM (Dual Mode) sedans used in HACLA fleets can travel by electricity for 40 to 60 miles. An important attribute of the Dual-Mode vehicle is that the users have the ability to manually switch the vehicle to stay in all-electric vehicle or “EV mode” just like a conventional battery-electric vehicles(BEV) throughout the life of the car. However, if there is a requirement to go farther than 60 miles in a given day, the vehicle can be manually switched to plug-in-hybrid electric or ”PHEV mode”, where a 1.0L gasoline engine can be engaged to extend the range another 300+ miles while charging the batteries. “The BYD ‘Dual-Mode’ vehicles resolve any ‘range anxiety’ that consumers might have driving an all-electric vehicle. The F3DM can be treated as an all-electric because gasoline is never required – users can drive all-electric all the time,” stated Micheal Austin, Vice President of BYD America.

“As a leader in the affordable housing industry, HACLA continues to implement innovative technology to reduce cost as a sustainable solution to helping the environment,” said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  “I commend HACLA and hope that its example will lead others to make environmentally conscious decisions.” 

The F3DM comes with an onboard overnight-charger which charges vehicles in less than 7 hours, allowing HACLA to simply install standard 220VAC outlets as you would for a home clothes dryer in their EV fleet parking areas. “Part of the appeal of this EV is the fact that we don’t need any special EV charging pedestals or equipment to charge, its all standard – that kept our initial launch costs in control and shortened our pay-back times,” said Mr. Montiel. BYD is also in discussions with HACLA to integrate solar power to charge an Energy Storage Station (ESS) during the day that could then discharge later during the EV fleet charging hours.

“BYD is pleased to partner with HACLA and Rudolf Montiel to integrate EVs and potentiallyrenewable energy to charge them – he is a visionary leader and a great friend to City of LA and to the environment,” said Mr. Austin.

“The HACLA is the second largest authority of its kind in the United States, serving more than 100,000 residents, and takes seriously its obligation of leadership both environmentally and fiscally” said Mr. Montiel. "This test partnership demonstrates our strong commitment to reducing the City's carbon footprint and HACLA’s cost.”

Link to the Article

王传福：私家车领域要优先发展双模电动车

我简单讲讲比亚迪这几年在电动车战略上的思考，仅供大家思考。比亚迪本身是做电池的，又是做汽车的，这是一个非常独特的方式，让两个技术进行联动。最近我们在深圳卖的双模电动车，目前卖的很好，同时我们有50部电动出租车在试运行。

何毅：面对王传福这样的旗帜性人物，我觉得我没法跟他提问题，我希望大家同意给他一个完整的时间，让他能够给大家阐述他的电动车战略。

　　王传福：今天很高兴，感谢搜狐网给这次机会。我简单讲讲比亚迪这几年在电动车战略上的思考，仅供大家思考。比亚迪本身是做电池的，又是做汽车的，这是一个非常独特的方式，让两个技术进行联动。中国这几年的汽车发展，已经到现在的1800万。汽车家庭已经不是梦想，应该说十年前汽车进入家庭是梦想，现在不是梦想。每个家庭都有一部轿车。每个人拥有一部轿车也不是什么梦想，我想未来20年、30年也能够完成。这一句话的背后，我们国家可以思考，中国有4亿个家庭，如果一个家庭一部轿车，我们有4亿部轿车，一部轿车一年用两亿吨油，那就花5亿吨油，哪有这么多油？我想中国发展电动车汽车具有紧迫性，涉及到国家安全问题。至于说二氧化碳减排问题，这是顺带要解决的问题。这是我想强调的一个观点。

　　第二个观点，电动车大家实际上有很多误解。当然很难，也不是想象得那么难，主要一是在于电池技术，如果电池通过了，别的方面也就迎刃而解。电动车实际上结构简单。二是节约，不管从资源和能源也好，都比较节约。包括像控制系统是95，在90个以上的效力。传统燃油车的效力，从能量来算，平均也在20%左右。真正带动车走动的也就在20%左右，大排量更小。我们现在要提倡资源节约型，这样就节约省钱。百公里耗油70个40块钱，一个是10块钱，省了30块钱，因此节约。三是环保，电动车要简单、节约、环保六个字。可能大家对电动车有误会，实际上电动车普及以后，它会变得非常可靠，非常简单，非常环保。

　　关于汽车的路线问题，我想我们要根据不同的市场来定。我们觉得汽车要从优先度来讲，公交大巴应该放在首位，公交和出租车加起来1170万。1170万除以11才百分之一点几，这些公交系统耗了不少油，耗油量占到整个交通25%。大家知道一部轿车1.6排量和私家车1.6排量的，私家车才运行几个小时？两到三个小时。出租车不一样，一天拼命运行，一天运行22个小时，一辆出租车相当于10辆私家车的耗油量和排污量。一辆公交大巴相当于30—40辆私家车的耗油量和排污量。油从哪里来？尾气排哪儿去？这都是我们要考虑的问题。因此，我觉得从经济这一角度来说，我觉得优先把公交电动化发展在首要的位置。对于公交，我的观点是要优先，同时走纯电动路线。大家知道公交对电池的要求，尤其是大巴，固定路线、固定区域、固定时间，然后政府可以照顾到。不像私家车，私家车是老百姓决定的，公共车不一样，政府是可以影响它的，也是可以说话的。这些领域，我觉得这些应该电动化。

　　第二点，私家车现在是6%的购车人，目前是上下班需要，同时坚固旅行。这时候我们觉得适合这种市场需要的，我觉得用双模电动车，或者有人叫增程式的都是一个概念，这类车是有市场的。国家一批不可能建那么多充电站，或者城市与城市之间的都不可能一下子被覆盖。所以，我认为在这个领域里，双模电动车拥有它的市场。既坚固了周一到周五的上下班，两条系统坚固，同时又是混合动力省油。因此我们觉得在私家车领域里要发展双模电动车，这是我的观点。

　　第三点，最近我们在深圳卖的双模电动车，目前卖的很好，同时我们有50部电动出租车在试运行。历程已经达到了150万公里，差不多私家车可以跑五年。原来我们卖车保持电池到底多少保质期？以前我们保质期5年，现在我们通过实际运行数据看，电池保持5年我们是有底的，因为我们在深圳已经运行7万公里没有任何问题。这就是我的经验和观点，谢谢！

　　何毅：论坛要求我必须代表我的网友提一个问题，因为在微博上网友已经非常的热烈。我想代表网友再向王总提一个问题。发展电动车最核心的就是技术，最大的挑战也是技术，技术最核心的应该是电池技术。而比亚迪能够成为中国汽车行业旗帜性的企业，我们得到的信息是比亚迪解决了电动车电池的技术。大家比较感兴趣，想王总给我们介绍一下比亚迪电池现在的状况和今后的规划。

　　王传福：电池科学实际上是材料的科学，因为有了材料的进步才有了电池的进步。电池也发展非常快，从铅酸到了现在的锂电池，还有我们手机上用的钴电池。现在目前锂电池是比较好的。锂电池分好几种，目前随着材料的进步，各有各的优点。汽车电池不能用手机电池这样的东西，汽车是千瓦时，如果要爆炸的话就是一个汽车炸弹，汽车体系要选一种更安全的电池，选来选去选了一种在高温下不分解的电池。但是它也有缺点，最高达到150的瓦时。随着技术的进步每年提高3%左右，按照过往的经验可以提高。这就是我们要在性能上和安全上找一个平衡。目前来说，磷酸铁电池还是比较好的电池。我们比亚迪认为我们目前的领域是磷酸铅锂一个非常好的方向，谢谢。

　　电池除了大的专利以外，大的专利是1991年美国有一所大学他们所注册掉了。除了这种专利后面还有很多种，比如说把一百个电池和两百个电池串联起来，这种差不多就有一百多个专利。我们做的比较早，可能看的比较远一点，我们就把它写成了专利。后人要绕开可能比较困难。因为时间早，所以就占有优势。

Link to the Article

Electric Car Dreams

Watch the full episode. See more NOW on PBS.

Timeline: History of the Electric Car

1832-1839
Scottish inventor Robert Anderson invents the first crude electric carriage powered by non-rechargeable primary cells.

1835
American Thomas Davenport is credited with building the first practical electric vehicle -- a small locomotive.

1859
French physicist Gaston Planté invents the rechargeable lead-acid storage battery. In 1881, his countryman Camille Faure will improve the storage battery's ability to supply current and invent the basic lead-acid battery used in automobiles.

1891
William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa builds the first successful electric automobile in the United States.

Thomas Edison and an electric car. Courtesy of the Smithsonian

1893
A handful of different makes and models of electric cars are exhibited in Chicago.

1897
The first electric taxis hit the streets of New York City early in the year. The Pope Manufacturing Company of Connecticut becomes the first large-scale American electric automobile manufacturer.

1899
Believing that electricity will run autos in the future, Thomas Alva Edison begins his mission to create a long-lasting, powerful battery for commercial automobiles. Though his research yields some improvements to the alkaline battery, he ultimately abandons his quest a decade later.

1900
The electric automobile is in its heyday. Of the 4,192 cars produced in the United States 28 percent are powered by electricity, and electric autos represent about one-third of all cars found on the roads of New York City, Boston, and Chicago.

A Ford Model T

1908
Henry Ford introduces the mass-produced and gasoline-powered Model T, which will have a profound effect on the U.S. automobile market.

1912
Charles Kettering invents the first practical electric automobile starter. Kettering's invention makes gasoline-powered autos more alluring to consumers by eliminating the unwieldy hand crank starter and ultimately helps pave the way for the electric car's demise.

1920
During the 1920s the electric car ceases to be a viable commercial product. The electric car's downfall is attributable to a number of factors, including the desire for longer distance vehicles, their lack of horsepower, and the ready availability of gasoline.

1966
Congress introduces the earliest bills recommending use of electric vehicles as a means of reducing air pollution. A Gallup poll indicates that 33 million Americans are interested in electric vehicles.

1970s
Concerns about the soaring price of oil -- peaking with the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 -- and a growing environmental movement result in renewed interests in electric cars from both consumers and producers.

1972
Victor Wouk, the "Godfather of the Hybrid," builds the first full-powered, full-size hybrid vehicle out of a 1972 Buick Skylark provided by General Motors (G.M.) for the 1970 Federal Clean Car Incentive Program. The Environmental Protection Association later kills the program in 1976.

Vanguard-Sebring's CitiCar

1974
Vanguard-Sebring's CitiCar makes its debut at the Electric Vehicle Symposium in Washington, D.C. The CitiCar has a top speed of over 30 mph and a reliable warm-weather range of 40 miles. By 1975 the company is the sixth largest automaker in the U.S. but is dissolved only a few years later.

1975
The U.S. Postal Service purchases 350 electric delivery jeeps from AM General, a division of AMC, to be used in a test program.

1976
Congress passes the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. The law is intended to spur the development of new technologies including improved batteries, motors, and other hybrid-electric components.

1988
Roger Smith, CEO of G.M. , agrees to fund research efforts to build a practical consumer electric car. G.M. teams up with California's AeroVironment to design what would become the EV1, which one employee called "the world's most efficient production vehicle." Some electric vehicle enthusiasts have speculated that the EV1 was never undertaken as a serious commercial venture by the large automaker.

1990
California passes its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, which requires two percent of the state's vehicles to have no emissions by 1998 and 10 percent by 2003. The law is repeatedly weakened over the next decade to reduce the number of pure ZEVs it requires.

1997
Toyota unveils the Prius -- the world's first commercially mass-produced and marketed hybrid car -- in Japan. Nearly 18,000 units are sold during the first production year.

1997 - 2000
A few thousand all-electric cars (such as Honda's EV Plus, G.M.'s EV1, Ford's Ranger pickup EV, Nissan's Altra EV, Chevy's S-10 EV, and Toyota's RAV4 EV) are produced by big car manufacturers, but most of them are available for lease only. All of the major automakers' advanced all-electric production programs will be discontinued by the early 2000s.

2002
G.M. and DaimlerChrysler sue the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to repeal the ZEV mandate first passed in 1990. The Bush Administration joins that suit.

Crushed EV1 electric cars

2003
G.M. announces that it will not renew leases on its EV1 cars saying it can no longer supply parts to repair the vehicles and that it plans to reclaim the cars by the end of 2004.

2005
On February 16, electric vehicle enthusiasts begin a "Don't Crush" vigil to stop G.M. from demolishing 78 impounded EV1s in Burbank, California. The vigil ends twenty-eight days later when G.M. removes the cars from the facility. In the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" G.M. spokesman Dave Barthmuss states that the EV1s are to be recycled, not just crushed.

2006

Tesla Motors publicly unveils the ultra-sporty Tesla Roadster at the San Francisco International Auto Show in November. The first production Roadsters will be sold in 2008 with a base price listing of $98,950.

2008

January

A Better Place charging spot

The Israeli government announces its support for a sweeping project to promote the use of electric cars in Israel. The effort will be a joint venture between Better Place, a Palo Alto start-up founded by software maven Shai Agassi, and French automaker Renault-Nissan. Agassi's plan is to create an extensive network of charging spots and to sell EV drivers mileage in their cars like minutes on a cell phone plan. The first Renault electric cars are scheduled to hit the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities in 2011. Better Place announces a host of partnerships to support electric vehicle projects in Denmark, Canada, Japan, Australia and the U.S.

July
Gas prices reach record highs of more than $4 a gallon and car sales drop to their lowest levels in a decade. American automakers begin to shift their production lines away from SUVs and other large vehicles toward smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

August
On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will push to have one million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on America's roads by 2015.

November
Struggling to remain profitable during the economic downturn, executives from the Big Three American automakers go to Washington to make the case for a $25 billion Federal bailout of the U.S. automotive industry.

December
BYD, a Chinese battery manufacturer turned automaker, releases the F3DM, the world's first mass produced plug-in hybrid compact sedan. Though they pack less energy than more conventional lithium ion batteries, BYD opts to power the F3DM with a more stable lithium iron phosphate battery. BYD plans to release the F3DM in the U.S. in 2011, but some industry insiders have doubts about whether the car is ready for the U.S. market. Though sales of the car remain sluggish, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway purchases a 10% stake in the company.

The National Bureau of Economic Research states officially that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007. The economic downturn is global in scope and will continue to exert financial pressures on the already battered U.S. auto industry.

2009

February
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocates $2 billion for development of electric vehicle batteries and related technologies. The Department of Energy adds another $400 million to fund building the infrastructure necessary to support plug-in electric vehicles.

April
Prime Minister Gordon Brown announces that the British government will promote the use of electric vehicles in the U.K. by offering a £2,000 subsidy to purchasers. A high-ranking government official estimates that 40% of all cars in Britain will need to be electric or hybrid for the country to reach it's goal of cutting 80% of its CO₂ emissions by 2050.

Chrysler files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As part of its restructuring, Chrysler forms a partnership with the Italian car maker Fiat.

May
President Obama announces a new gas-mileage policy that will require automakers to meet a minimum fuel-efficiency standard of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016.

June

The Tesla Roadster

The Department of Energy awards $8 billion in loans to Ford, Nissan, and Tesla Motors to support the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. The automaker loans are the first distributions from a larger $25 billion fund created under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

General Motors, the leading producer of automobiles for most of the 20th Century, files for bankruptcy protection. While strong GM brands such as Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC are slated to continue, smaller names like Saturn, Hummer and Pontiac will be sold or closed. The federal government will hold a 61 percent stake in the reborn General Motors.

August
Nissan unveils its new electric car, called the LEAF ("Leading, Environmentally Friendly, Affordable, Family Car"). The LEAF is capable of a maximum speed of more than 90 mph, can travel 100 miles on a full charge, and has a battery that can be recharged to 80% of its capacity in 30 minutes. Similar to the Better Place initiative in Israel, Nissan plans to work with the Japanese government and private companies to set up charging station networks across several countries. The first production LEAFs are scheduled to go on sale in Japan, Europe, and the U.S. in the fall of 2010.

Late 2009
Though a few electric cars and plug-in hybrids are currently available on the market, several new models including the Nissan LEAF, Chevrolet Volt, and Mitsubishi i MiEV are scheduled to hit the streets in the near future. Toyota, creator of the popular Prius hybrid, has thus far declined to deliver a fully electric car.

Despite promising signs, the electric car will need to navigate a bumpy road before it can become a viable option for many drivers. Challenges to mass adoption include high sticker prices, limited battery life and travel range, and building charging stations and other infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

Link